Negative Scholars

[Leeb]

Don't take the scholars away, if done right and not abused by multiple accounts you can use as a team tattic , like a football match has atatckers and mid fielders and defence , the scholars are the goal keepers a player who does not have much time to commit as say the atatckers in the team can throw out scholars as part of the team player to a team member , done like that I see nothing wrong with negative scholars leave the scholars as they are please , we used this tattic the right way in world 75 and it was via team play with other players and coordinated to achive extra scholars so the team could go on a major punch forward to conquer , I don't like that a multie account person can use this system but let's face most of those types of player don't achive much in the game, if my say counts please let it count as a no to replacing this system, negative scholars used in the way I described are a way for someone less active within a team to beinfit the team they are playing in and on kaoka they get as much respect for there efforts as someone who does the actual attacking with them. I hate multi accounts and think they should be kicked out of the game somehow the negative scholar are great used in team play , please do not change this.

[Kingjason666]

People (fire lol) seem to think negative scholars are cheating. Let's be honest here only thing they save is buying scholarships.

It takes time to build a scholar hub.
Once a scholar dies he can't be rebuilt
A smart enemy will research where the scholars are comming from and destroy the scholar hub itself and leave the neg player dad in the water.
Neg players can't build scholars close to targets. And have loooong trips. I sent scholars the other day 115hr walk and had to time a hell of a lot of clearance to land Witt he scholars to make sure I got the city's.

So those fighting people like me with a 1000 scholars spare do some research and turn the tide. We may have unlimited scholars but we have more issues that make us weak

[KMT]

kimakaze: i guess you are thinking about Tribal Wars policy or something like that. i like their rules, i started to play that game a couple of days ago when i realized they developed an app to play on iphone... i love valor, being sticked for years but a little bit annoyed lately, so looking elsewhere...
anyway i am not sure TW staff is really able to find out who uses multiple devices. maybe somebody but everybody?

and another point to discuss: we are talking about neg scholars users not fair because they do not use their resos to buy scholarships. ever thought about people using 2+ accounts and not using neg scholars?
-1 account and 100 cities: ks of scholarships a a lot of lags while switching them
- 2 accounts and 50 cities each. how many scholarships? less than half. how much wasted time? less than half because 2 accounts can run at same time.
So? 2 accounts people manage same cities number and same scholars number but they do it fast and use less resos. is it fair? more fair than neg scholars?
I wrote about 2 accounts players but many are using 3 or more, i was told there are guilds made by second and third accounts - told by those players-

As i wrote in past msgs i am not against multiple device users exactly like i am not against neg scholars. i simply do not see any cheating, just different ways to play and to fight once you got your enemy strategy.

[LordFirefall]

KJ – There are many people besides me, who oppose negative scholars. I could beat the bushes, as you have, to get them to post, but do we really need another set of players to add to the “I’m with him” chorus? I know you continually say the only thing this saves is buying scholarships, but you and I both know that isn’t true. The time you save in buying scholarships is time used in planning ops and attacking. The resources you save in scholarships are resources that can be devoted to troop training. I realize you say you don’t personally have the time to use those resources, but others do. Moreover, even if you don’t maximize the use of those resources, they are still sitting there when the troops in your city get killed. It takes much less effort to retrain troops from a city that has 500k of every resource, versus one that has 100k sitting around. Instead of touching that city 3-4 times a day to get it up to full strength, you can touch it once every 2-3 days. When you multiple that by 1000 cities, it is a substantial advantage. Yes, it takes a little work for your scholar farmers to pre-position those scholars for you. But let’s be honest about it; If going negative on scholars was harder than not, you wouldn’t be doing it.

KMT – if people are running 2nd and 3rd accounts as you describe, I really have no problem with it. However, the vast majority are not using it like that. Most are using the 2nd accounts as scholar farms, city feeders for their primaries, and etc. While I have a personal issue with it, there’s very little that can be done from Quark’s end to fix every case of that. They could fix the worst abusers (such as those using multiple accounts from one jail broken device), but would be unable to address those who use multiple devices, using multiple ISPs. Looking around my house, I could easily run four accounts, each on a separate device, and each with its own Internet connection. Pretty hard to prevent that. You also have valid users running on the same Internet connection, and any effort to catch folks running 2nd and 3rd accounts stands a chance of preventing those types from playing.

[KMT]

Firefall: this is math about 1 vs 2 accounts buying scholarships:
- player A has 1 account: when he gets his city #101 he has already collected 5050 scholarships
- player B has 2 accounts: when he gets his city #51/account he has already collected 1275 scholarships/account
Now imagine B growing both accounts: he will have 51+51= 102 cities disposable having bought 2550 scholarships. Player A got 101 buying 5050.

Now do same math for city #201: player A had to buy 20100 scolarships to get #201 while player B 5050+5050=10100 scholarships to have 202 cities
And for city #501: player A had to buy 12,5250 scolarships to get #501 while player B 31,375+31,375=62,750 scholarships to have 502 cities

And time to collect resos: player B can collect resos in both accounts so he can get same number of cities using less scholarships and in half the time.

At the end player B can get same cities number to manage in 1/4 time needed by A and B will have less cities/device so less lags. saved resos and time are devoted to troops recruiting and to plan.

I am not saying how many multiple device users are playing this way, i am just underlining one of the uses of multiple accounts. then spying,... but it really does not matter: i am not against multiple devices at all! I know players using 7 accounts,i know families of 5 members playing Valor. What's the difference? This is Valor, it is a war game and we use the best we can to fight and rule.
When i think i am fighting a player using neg scholars i look for his builder to level his cities, when i see good cooperation between 2 accounts i suggest to attack both accounts at same time. No matter who uses them.

Fire i am addressing my post to you because you dedicate your time to talk here with us, but i am just tryting to explain my point of view and i really appreciate what you are doing.

[Kimakaze77]

KMT. I totally understand your explanation of the math involved with buying scholarships. However, while there may be some players that do exactly what you explain, I know for a fact that many others do not have multiple accts for legit reasons. They almost always eventually eat the other acct. Which in itself is part of the game. But if they load up their secondary with scholars before capping it, the player is exploiting the scholarship rule.

I have no problems with multiple devices in and of itself. I know someone that started a a world with 5 accts and eventually ate all of them with the primary acct. stripping negative scholars will not negate the easy caps the player with multiple accts will gain, it'll will just slow them down to a normal pace.

[Kingjason666]

Fire going neg is harder. But reason I did it was at the time our was doing it and had a huge jump on us. Double the city's. I decided that if strykers was to win I had to go neg in order to try and catch up to them quickly and gain control of the world. We won they re dead. So they don't cre about scholarship in our world. But by the time we won it was too late to go back to zero

[LordFirefall]

Fire going neg is harder. But reason I did it was at the time our was doing it and had a huge jump on us. Double the city's. I decided that if strykers was to win I had to go neg in order to try and catch up to them quickly and gain control of the world. We won they re dead. So they don't cre about scholarship in our world. But by the time we won it was too late to go back to zero

Not much else I need to say here then. Your enemy used negative scholars to pull ahead of you by a large margin. The only way you were able to compete was to do the same thing. Eliminating them, especially in later worlds, can restore balance where it has been lost.

[Powerbang]

Fire going neg is harder.

Having experience playing in both manners... I can say you're flat wrong.

Not only is playing with FREE loaded cities and infinite scholars EASY... There is no limit to your growth as you can focus ALL of your resources in fully built cities on troops.

Now you regenerate troops faster than your enemy and because you've exploited your way to infinite scholars, you have WAY more cities than you should at your disposal to attack a city. Get enough free cities and you're impossible to defend against.

Oh but the walk time gets further and further way as the front line keeps distancing itself from my scholar hub..... WHO CARES?

Give away a front line city, load it with scholars, cap it back and back to business as usual...

You're kidding yourselves if you think playing with free cities, free troops and free scholars isn't a MASSIVE advantage over those that don't exploit.

[Kingarthur3]

It is a MASSIVE advantage, but one that all are free to endure if they wanted, and a ton did. Nothing is stopping them from all doing it. It was a war tatic used to adopt our enemies style, and we were able to perfect it better than they were and they died because of that.

SO now we want to penalize players for adapting to win, because they did adapt?!?! Seems a bit off to me, but what do I know......apparently not as much as some here.